Next: About this document ...

Quasie Bayaidee v. Quamina Mensah
(1878) Sar. F.C.L. 171.
Full Court Report (todo: What court??)
March 27, 1878


The plaintiff here seeks to recover from the defendant a piece of land called ``Odoomassie,'' the possession of which, he says, the defendant has unlawfully deprived him. The judgment of the Court below was, that the plaintiff should recover the land, against which judgment the present appeal is brought.

It appears from the evidence that Bayaidee purchased the land from Kofi Aigin for the price of 1 \ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}} preguans; that Kofi Aigin was the owner of the land; that his purchase took place fourteen years ago, as plaintiff states, and in any case, a very considerable number of years ago; that upon purchase Bayaidee entered into possession of the land and cultivated it, and that his possession was not disturbed until seven months before he brought the suit in September last.

The ground on which the appeal was maintained was that [172] the land was family land; that Kofi Aigin, although the occupant of the stool, could not make a valid sale of the land alone, and that one of the members of the family, Eccua Assabill, protested against the sale at the time it was being effected. Now, although it may be, and we believe it is the law, that the concurrence of the members of the family ought to be given in order to constitute an unimpeachable sale of family land, the sale is not in itself void, but is capable of being opened up a the instance of the family, provided they avail themselves of their right timeously and under circumstances in which, upon the rescinding of the bargain, the purchaser can be fully restored to the position in which he stood before the sale.

This is obviously not the case, whereas here the purchaser has possessed for a series of years an undisputed ownership--has cultivated and improved the land, and has established a home upon it.

We are of opinion that whatever right of impeaching the sale the family possessed is barred by their acquiescence and the plaintiff's continued course of undisturbed possession.

And we order that the judgment of the Court that he should recover his land be affirmed, with costs of this appeal.

Next: About this document ...
Josh DuBois 2005-01-03